Who would take care of the animals in a vegan world?

[Spreadsheet]

Say everyone in the world suddenly became vegan (eating no animals products whatsoever). How would we take care of the domesticated animals (those that cannot survive without humans)?

• Not all animals can be used for work.
• There are 1.3 billion cattle, 2 billion pigs, 24 billion chickens, and 1 billion sheep, just to name a few domesticated animals. If you add these up, it would be 28.3 billion animals. Every person would have to take care of about 4 animals.
• Some animals don't contribute much to society except for their products. Pigs are used for meat. Chickens are used for their eggs and meat.
• Hiring people to take care of the animals would be pointless, since the animals won't be producing anything.
• Zoos don't need billions of animals to exhibit.
• Letting animals roam free would expose them to hunger and disease. They won't be able to survive.

Possible solution: "rewild" the animals, but this would cause invasive species that would wipe out the native population of animals

I've asked on reddit and another forum before, but I've never gotten a real, clear answer. Could Physics Forums help me?

Sources: wikipedia

 

[Evo]

A vegan diet is unhealthy and not sustainable without supplements, so such a scenario is more science fiction than anything else and since humans are biologically carnivores, I don't even see the point in your post. Just not going to happen. You've also neglected the other uses for animals, leather, feathers, animal feed, by-products.

 

[Spreadsheet]

My question is towards the vegans who want the entire world to eat like them.

 

[Pengwuino]

They'd die. Is that not obvious?

 

[Evo]

My question is towards the vegans who want the entire world to eat like them.

Then that really makes no sense, you want to ask just vegans about the animals they don't eat?

 

[Leptos]

There are far more than 1 billion sheep(if you're counting the humans).

 

[Spreadsheet]

Then that really makes no sense, you want to ask just vegans about the animals they don't eat?

No... I'm asking them about what they would do to those animals that they care so much about.

 

[Evo]

No... I'm asking them about what they would do to those animals that they care so much about.

Ah, I see. Well not all vegans care about animals, they have a belief that eliminating necessary natural nutrients in their diet and trying to replace them with artificial supplements is somehow healthier than eating the real thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it's obvious that Spreadsheet is wondering how the world would work if vegans "got their way" in the sense that no one would exploit animals. He is figuring that the vegans' plan is short-sighted and ultimately flawed.

I think the danger of Spreadsheet's position is that he is putting words in the mouths of vegans. The question he needs to get answered first is: Do vegans think the whole world should stop exploiting animals, and what do they see that world looking like?

 

[lisab]

I think it's obvious that Spreadsheet is wondering how the world would work if vegans "got their way" in the sense that no one would exploit animals. He is figuring that the vegans' plan is short-sighted and ultimately flawed.

I think the danger of Spreadsheet's position is that he is putting words in the mouths of vegans. The question he needs to get answered first is: Do vegans think the whole world should stop exploiting animals, and what do they see that world looking like?

Vegans don't mind having words put into their mouths; it's animals and animal by-products they object to.

 

[Spreadsheet]

Yes, Dave is correct. Do vegans think the whole world should stop exploiting animals, and what do they see that world looking like?

 

[Averagesupernova]

They would go extinct which is a very dangerous thing. I've had this conversation on PF before and the view of the poster I was discussing it with was that it was fine to let them go extinct. They just wanted to 'end the suffering' of all the animals we use for animal products, food, etc. Many animals, chicken is a good example, can forage and scrounge for their food and live off a landscape that would never support a human. This is why we have what we do today. Thousands of years of human survival because our ancestors learned how to survive by utilizing animals. We didn't end up where we are today utilizing animals for no reason at all.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, Dave is correct. Do vegans think the whole world should stop exploiting animals, and what do they see that world looking like?

I think though, your argument itself is flawed. Consider the following analogous argument:

"What do scientists think they're doing trying to cure cancer and other disease? The world is overpopulated enough as it is, what do they think the world will look like if no one died of cancer or disease?"


See, the cause is justified in-and-of-itself. Unwanted side-effects do not mitigate the worthiness of the cause.

 

[Chi Meson]

I've asked on reddit and another forum before, but I've never gotten a real, clear answer.

Sources: wikipedia

So you want a "real, clear answer" to an impossible, hypothetical, question? An extreme, fringe wing of a culinary minority group will not suddenly "get their way" across the globe, so the points is lost.

If the world should move toward global veganism (no, I am not for that; I like a good cheeseburger), but if it did so, it would "phase out" animal husbandry. The millions and billions of domesticated food animals would die by attrition. Such a cultural shift would take centuries.

 

[Huckleberry]

A vegan diet is unhealthy and not sustainable without supplements, so such a scenario is more science fiction than anything else and since humans are biologically carnivores, I don't even see the point in your post. Just not going to happen. You've also neglected the other uses for animals, leather, feathers, animal feed, by-products.

What supplements are necessary that cannot be found naturally in plant products?

I would say humans are omnivores. A mostly animal matter diet sounds tasty, but I don't think that would be healthy for a human. Our biology is well-suited for digesting vegetable matter. Some web sites make the argument that humans are biologically herbivores by citing the many similarities of herbivores and humans. However, they promote an agenda, so I'd like to know specifically what traits suit us to digesting animal matter that is different from herbivores.

 

[ideasrule]

As Huckleberry said, a well-planned vegan diet is perfectly sustainable without any supplements. A poorly-planned diet is not, but that's hardly a problem specific to vegans.

Humans are definitely not biological carnivores. They've been functional omnivores since the hunterer-gatherer days, but their biological relatives, the primates, are primarily herbivorous. The chimpanzee, for example, gets 4% of its food from insects and 1% from meat; the rest is from plant matter.

 

[leroyjenkens]

What supplements are necessary that cannot be found naturally in plant products?

I think B-12 can only be obtained from animal products. But nowadays, a vegan could have a bowl of cereal with some soy milk and have almost an entire day's worth of vitamins and minerals.

 

[Evo]

As Huckleberry said, a well-planned vegan diet is perfectly sustainable without any supplements. A poorly-planned diet is not, but that's hardly a problem specific to vegans.

Humans are definitely not biological carnivores. They've been functional omnivores since the hunterer-gatherer days, but their biological relatives, the primates, are primarily herbivorous. The chimpanzee, for example, gets 4% of its food from insects and 1% from meat; the rest is from plant matter.

Yes, I meant omnivores, I thought of that around 3am, but I knew I would be corrected.

 

[hamster143]

Ah, I see. Well not all vegans care about animals, they have a belief that eliminating necessary natural nutrients in their diet and trying to replace them with artificial supplements is somehow healthier than eating the real thing.

I'd like to see studies that prove that vegan diet, when properly balanced and supplemented with artificial vitamins & minerals, is unhealthy. Better yet, let's consider lacto-ovo vegetarian diet (since neither milking nor collecting unfertilized eggs requires cruel treatment of animals).

There is solid evidence that most Westerners eat too much meat. Modern dietitians recommend to eat at most 18 ounces per week, because studies have shown that exceeding that amount leads to increased risk of cancer. Americans average 60-70 ounces per week.

So, cutting meat consumption to zero may or may not be a good idea, but many of us should definitely reduce our meat consumption by 75% or more. That may not be true veganism, but it'll surely feel like one.

 

[Evo]

I'd like to see studies that prove that vegan diet, when properly balanced and supplemented with artificial vitamins & minerals, is unhealthy.

Monique had posted an excellent study showing that artificial nutrients did not perform nearly as well as the natural vitamins and nutrients found in natural foods. I'll try to find it later.

 

[imiyakawa]

I think people are missing the extremely interesting point that OP made, in that there is a certain % of vegans that adhere to their diet because of concerns for animal wellbeing, yet by doing so they reduce demand, which subsequently reduces supply, and thus their act of not having demand for animal products directly reduces the amount of animals allowed to exist. Their goal of stopping animal exploitation by sticking to a vegan diet is reducing their population - they might as well be eating them.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is solid evidence that most Westerners eat too much meat. Modern dietitians recommend to eat at most 18 ounces per week

What?? I'm only supposed to have a steak once a week??

 

[hamster143]

I think people are missing the extremely interesting point that OP made, in that there is a certain % of vegans that adhere to their diet because of concerns for animal wellbeing, yet by doing so they reduce demand, which subsequently reduces supply, and thus their act of not having demand for animal products directly reduces the amount of animals allowed to exist. Their goal of stopping animal exploitation by sticking to a vegan diet is reducing their population - they might as well be eating them.

By that logic, it should be legal, nay, proper for you to pay some woman to conceive and carry a child to term and then raise him/her as a servant or a slave. Since NOT doing that would've directly reduced the size of human population - you might as well be enslaving them.

 

[Chi Meson]

What?? I'm only supposed to have a steak once a week??

Do we include the weight of the ribcage with that?

 

[ideasrule]

The original reasoning that meat consumption should be continued because domesticated animals would die without humans is nonsense. If humans stop eating meat, 99% of the current domesticated animal population would die and that would be the end of it. If humans continue eating meat, the current population would die. Their offspring would die. Their offspring's offspring would die, and so on and so forth.

 

[ideasrule]

I think people are missing the extremely interesting point that OP made, in that there is a certain % of vegans that adhere to their diet because of concerns for animal wellbeing, yet by doing so they reduce demand, which subsequently reduces supply, and thus their act of not having demand for animal products directly reduces the amount of animals allowed to exist. Their goal of stopping animal exploitation by sticking to a vegan diet is reducing their population - they might as well be eating them.

Plenty of governments are trying to reduce their (human) populations. I'm sure they'd disagree with the idea of eating humans though.

 

[imiyakawa]

By that logic, it should be legal, nay, proper for you to pay some woman to conceive and carry a child to term and then raise him/her as a servant or a slave. Since NOT doing that would've directly reduced the size of human population - you might as well be enslaving them.

Well said. But then the counter-point to that is that vegans appear to be indirectly purporting to know that animals would rather not exist and not get treated badly than exist and get treated badly.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The original reasoning that meat consumption should be continued because domesticated animals would die without humans is nonsense. If humans stop eating meat, 99% of the current domesticated animal population would die and that would be the end of it. If humans continue eating meat, the current population would die. Their offspring would die. Their offspring's offspring would die, and so on and so forth.

This is twisting things. The implied argument seems to be: If you care about animals and think that everyone should stop eating them because this is cruel to the animals then what do you suggest we do with them if we all stop eating them? Most will not survive in the wild so releasing them into the wild would seem cruel. Their captivity and living conditions tend to be part of the argument that keeping animals for food is cruel so continuing their captivity does not seem like the benevolent answer either. Other arguments against keeping animals for food include land use issues and the impact on the environment. Neither keeping the animals nor setting them loose seems to get rid of these issues. If we simply allow them to die or euthanize them then we will be responsible for making several whole species extinct or endangered (if we keep a few around).

In short, all of the potential answers to the issues of cruelty and environmental impact seem to involve cruelties and environmental impacts of their own.

 

[hamster143]

What?? I'm only supposed to have a steak once a week??

Ideally, you should not be eating steak (red meat) at all.

In terms of health benefits per slaughtered living being, it's hard to beat whale meat (as long as you screen out mercury-contaminated whales).

 

[imiyakawa]

Ideally, you should not be eating steak (red meat) at all.

Strange, a well funded ad campaing ran for weeks in Australia urging us to "eat 2 servings of red meat a week." I wonder if that was to keep the industry alive rather than giving health advice.

 

[DanP]

Hopefully, the world won't end up vegan. It would be a daily nightmare for me to eat ~3500 kcal from vegan foods only. Chicken meat, ocean fish meat and occasionally some beef and pork make my heart very happy.

I would open a farm in a vegan world to cater the needs of the variation I would take care of animals, and they would keep me well fed.

 

[Moonbear]

I'd like to see studies that prove that vegan diet, when properly balanced and supplemented with artificial vitamins & minerals, is unhealthy.

The point is that you need artificial supplements in order for it to be balanced. That means a vegan diet, by itself, is unhealthy. The supplements are necessary. Now, if you're worried about the animals and the planet and whatever have you, why is it better to have factories producing artificially manufactured vitamin supplements when an animal product is sufficient to fulfill that requirement?

Better yet, let's consider lacto-ovo vegetarian diet (since neither milking nor collecting unfertilized eggs requires cruel treatment of animals).

That diet is sufficiently balanced, but there are people (usually vegans) who would argue that even milking cows and raising chickens for their eggs is cruel. (No, I don't agree with this position, but this is the position other people hold.)

When the chickens and cows get old, should we just let them die of old age rather than kill them and use them for meat? Granted, it would be some tough meat, but why would that meat be bad?

 

[DaveC426913]

Ideally, you should not be eating steak (red meat) at all.

umbrella acquiring philanthropy hot

See, just because you string words together doesn't mean they make sense...

 

[Chi Meson]

When the chickens and cows get old, should we just let them die of old age rather than kill them and use them for meat? Granted, it would be some tough meat, but why would that meat be bad?

Oh, they get used for meat. Did you think school lunches get the prime chicken? Those chunks in most canned soups and stews, etc, that's where the "laying hens" go.

 

[Moonbear]

Oh, they get used for meat. Did you think school lunches get the prime chicken? Those chunks in most canned soups and stews, etc, that's where the "laying hens" go.

I know this. I was referring to this so-called vegan world and the arbitrariness of assuming all meat consumption was somehow cruel compared to only eating dairy and eggs, or worse for the animals and environment than artificially manufacturing vitamin supplements.

 

[MotoH]

I don't think I have had a meal without meat for well, ever. Well, during lent you eat the fish on friday and that supposedly isn't meat but I am a little skeptical about that!

It is somewhat like the wild hogs in Georgia, if we all of the sudden just let cattle go free range because we aren't eating them anymore they would breed and breed until they ate their whole food supply and died of starvation. They would become a pest. I am all for shooting wild hogs, but I don't want to have to take down a wild cow!

 

[Evo]

I've got to ask the question. Could we feed the world's almost 7 billion people without meat, seafood, fowl, eggs and all dairy products? Not to mention farms for insects, worms, caterpillars, etc... that are consumed in some countries. I know some people that won't eat honey because it comes from bees.

 

[hamster143]

The point is that you need artificial supplements in order for it to be balanced. That means a vegan diet, by itself, is unhealthy. The supplements are necessary. Now, if you're worried about the animals and the planet and whatever have you, why is it better to have factories producing artificially manufactured vitamin supplements when an animal product is sufficient to fulfill that requirement?

That is not quite true. Followers of unbalanced vegan diets can be lacking some nutrients, and meat eaters can be lacking them too. To balance a vegetarian diet, you need to consume some types of food that can be considered exotic by meat eaters (e.g. tofu and avocados).

IIRC the only nutrient that is _really_ missing in a 100% vegan diet is vitamin B12. Daily recommended dose of B12 for an adult is measured in micrograms per day. 20 kg/day of B12 would be enough to prevent nutritional deficiencies in 6 billion people. Do you think that a factory that produces 20 kg/day is somehow worse for animals and the environment than commercial meat industry that produces one million tons of meat per day?

Also, do you think that farm animals don't get any supplements? Unlike us, farm animals have extremely limited menus and they have to be heavily supplemented to achieve optimal meat yields. Think of an element, chances are, there's a commercially produced animal feed supplement that contains that element.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cobalt+supplement+for+cattle
http://www.google.com/search?q=selenium+supplement+for+cattle
http://www.google.com/search?q=magnesium+supplement+for+cattle
http://www.google.com/search?q=fluoride+supplement+for+cattle

Could we feed the world's almost 7 billion people without meat, seafood, fowl, eggs and all dairy products?

Without a doubt. Meat is extremely inefficient. It takes 15 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. It's been estimated that, simply by rerouting all grains used in the U.S. as cattle feed toward human consumption, we could feed 800 million people.

 

[Evo]

Without a doubt. Meat is extremely inefficient. It takes 15 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. It's been estimated that, simply by rerouting all grains used in the U.S. as cattle feed toward human consumption, we could feed 800 million people.

Beef is only a small portion of what I mentioned. How would you feed Japan without fish?

Were talking beef, pork, chickens, ducks, turkey, pheasants, geese, hundreds of different seafoods. Not to mention eggs, cheese, milk, and other dairy products that are staples in many diets.

 

[MotoH]

You can't feed everyone a peanut butter sandwich for every meal. There is just no way that the whole world could live on just vegetables with this many people! A small group of people would probably be able to do it if they were living in a large enough area but there is just not enough vegetation in order to fulfill the demand for food.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Without a doubt. Meat is extremely inefficient. It takes 15 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. It's been estimated that, simply by rerouting all grains used in the U.S. as cattle feed toward human consumption, we could feed 800 million people.

Cattle are mostly grass fed and the majority of grain that goes into their diets is not fit for human consumption.

 

[ideasrule]

Beef is only a small portion of what I mentioned. How would you feed Japan without fish?

Japan isn't agriculturally self-sufficient. It already imports most of its food, and has no problem doing so because of its large economy.

 

[Evo]

Japan isn't agriculturally self-sufficient. It already imports most of its food, and has no problem doing so because of its large economy.

What do they import? Meat, fowl, dairy?

 

[Huckleberry]

The B12 doesn't originate from animal products. It comes from bacteria that animals eat when they eat plants. Humans could get B12 from eating plants, but with pesticides and food washing we remove the bacteria. So the B12 deficiency in vegan diets is a result of modern culture, not a naturally unsustainable diet. Ofcourse, vegans would have to discontinue the use of pesticides and food washing, which causes other problems in a modern society.

Are there any other requirements of a vegan diet and way of life that would require large changes to modern culture?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The B12 doesn't originate from animal products. It comes from bacteria that animals eat when they eat plants. Humans could get B12 from eating plants, but with pesticides and food washing we remove the bacteria. So the B12 deficiency in vegan diets is a result of modern culture, not a naturally unsustainable diet. Ofcourse, vegans would have to discontinue the use of pesticides and food washing, which causes other problems in a modern society.

I believe that there are also some vegetable foods that are decent sources of B-12 (seaweed and plankton) only they are not very prevalent in most people's diets.

Are there any other requirements of a vegan diet and way of life that would require large changes to modern culture?

Many areas are not very suitable for large scale farming. People in these areas would need to have the ability to import foods, keep their population down, migrate to more fertile locations, or a mixture of all of the above.

Edit: accepting the use of GM foods could also go a long way.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is just no way that the whole world could live on just vegetables with this many people!

Eliminating meat does not leave "just" vegetables.

 

[MotoH]

What else is left after you cut out anything related to an animal?

 

[rootX]

Re: Who would take care of the animals in a vegan world?

Me! It would be my dream world because meat would be free :)On side note, Switzerland was passing law to provide lawyers to the animals

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8554012.stm

 

[hamster143]

Cattle are mostly grass fed and the majority of grain that goes into their diets is not fit for human consumption.

The point is that they consume the amount of grain (primarily, corn) that could've satisfied caloric requirements of 800 million people, IN ADDITION to grass. BTW, the use of land as pasture to grow grass is still inefficient. We could use that land to grow vegetables and feed even more people. And corn is quite fit for human consumption. If we intended to feed it to humans, maybe we would've grown different varieties or used somewhat lower plant density, but that does not change the arithmetics substantially.

Ultimately, it's simple conservation of energy. Plants collect sunlight and turn it into chemical energy. We could either eat plants directly, or we could pass that energy through an intermediate step (feed it to animals, and then eat those animals). We know that the intermediate step is very inefficient: <10% with cattle, 20%, tops, with rabbits.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What do they import? Meat, fowl, dairy?

I don't know what the situation is now, but the last year I was there, they had a bad crop and had to import rice.